The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c18: Chapter XIV. Finance and Currency

The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c18

Language: English

Chapter XIV. Finance and Currency

c18.2

Mention of fiscal affairs in the contemporary accounts is extremely rare. It is undoubted, however, that the four taxes allowed by the *Shariah* furnished the Sultanate's basic income. These were: (i) the tax on agricultural produce, called *kharaj* and *ushr*¹; (ii) poll-tax on the *zimmis* called *jaziah*; (iii) 1/5 of the booty captured in battle from the infidels, called *khums*, and (iv) the income-tax on the Muslims, called *zakat*. The last item, although collected by the state, could be spent only on certain specified items². In the land revenue the distinction between *kharaj* and *ushr*,—the latter being a tax of 1/10th of the produce of land held by a Muslim or watered by natural means,—could not be maintained when non-Muslims began to accept Islam in large numbers and were allowed to retain their lands, so that, at an early date in the history of Islam, the *kharaj* had come to be applied both on Muslim and non-Muslim holders³. Further, it is doubtful if these taxes were realised in India with the same scrupulous regard to the legal rules as is expected; under the Memeluke Sultans, at any rate, the land revenue is almost always referred to as the *kharaj*. Aibak, on his accession, is known to have reintroduced the distinction between *kharaj* and *ushr*, for on the property (*milk*) of the Muslim citizens of Lahore he fixed the tax at 1/10 and in some cases even 1/20, instead of the existing 1/5, which the narrator considered illegal¹. But later instances do not prove its continued application; Barani records the imposition of *kharaj* on the land of one Sirajuddin, early in Balban’s reign². Even the schedule of rates, as laid down by the lawyers, was not always adhered to, as is evident from Balban’s advice to Bughra Khan “to adopt the middle course in exacting *kharaj* from the subjects and not to take too much or too little from them”³. Obviously, expediency was the sole critirion; Alauddin Khalji’s reforms in the matter of land revenue with a view to forestall rebellion and fill his treasury by fixing the state-demand at 1/2 of the gross produce, are well-known. This *kharaj* was collected by the king’s *diwan-i-wazarat* directly from the peasants only in the *khalisah* areas. In the provinces, the *muqti’s* revenue department supervised the collection and rendered an account together with the surplus to the central exchequer. With this revenue should also be classed the amount realised as tribute from the vassal rulers, which was in reality only a composition for the *kharaj*, realised from the peasants of the state concerned⁴.

c18.3

¹ For the rules governing the application of *kharaj* and *ushr*, see Abu Yusuf: *Kitabul Kharaj*, pp. 35-39; Aghnides: *Muslim Theories of Finance*, pp. 362, 425.

c18.4

² See Rahim: *Muhammedan Jurisprudence*, p. 385.

c18.5

³ *Encyclopaedia of Islam*, article on *kharaj*; also al-Mawadi: *Akhkamus-Sultaniyah*, p. 138.

c18.6

¹ Fakhre Mudir: *Tarikh*, pp. 33-34.

c18.7

² Barani, p. 194.

c18.8

³ Barani, p. 100.

c18.9

⁴ The Persian word *peshkash*, used in the sense of a nominal tribute and present by writers in the Mughal period, is not found in the early chronicles where the words *kharaj* and *malguzari* are used in connection with the submission of the Hindu princes; see e.g. *Tajul Maasir*, ff. 469, 255a; see also *Ijaz-i-Khusravi*, p. 416a.

c18.10

Curiously enough, the earlier chronicles omit all mention of the imposition of *jaziah* on the conquered Hindus⁵. This need not, however, mean that the poll- *Jaziah.* tax was not levied, but there seem good reasons to believe that the term *jaziah* was not used exclusively in the sense of a capitation tax as is understood to day or was interpreted by later writers¹. The earliest use of the tax in this sense was by Firoz Khalji who admits his having imposed it on the Hindus²; in actual practice, it does not always seem to have been enforced in all its essential details. A significant instance comes, from the reign of Firoz Tughluq who in a boastful manner records his services to Islam and the Shariah, in, among other acts, realising the *jaziah* from the Brahmins who had hitherto been exempted from this tax³. He also talks of his having abolished the *jaziah* on those who embraced Islam as a mark of special favour, which would suggest that even Muslim converts before him were required to pay this tax⁴.

c18.11

⁵ Among works written in India it is mentioned first in the *Adabul Harb*, f. 157b-158a but the term is evidently used to denote taxes levied both on the Hindu and Muslim peoples.

c18.12

¹ Juwaini, writing towards the end of the 13th century, uses both *jaziah* and *kharaj* to mean tribute; II, p. 89. Barani, also on two occasions, calls the land revenue *jaziah*; p. 574.

c18.13

² Barani, p. 218.

c18.14

³ Afif: op. cit. p. 38. Even Firoz did not impose the customary four rates of the tax as described in the *Adabul Harb*, f. 158a. Cf. Afif’s details of Firoz’s tax; p. 383.

c18.15

⁴ *Futuhat-i-Firozshahi*, f. 304b.

c18.16

In the realisation of the *khums* also, similar departure from the rules of law are noticeable. This is proved, again, by Firoz Tughuq’s remarks that before him the government practice in Delhi was to retain 4/5 of the booty (*ghanimah*) and distribute only 1/5 to the participating soldiers, which was just the reverse of what the law prescribes⁵. In 1259, Ulugh Khan returned from the Mewati expedition with, among others, sixty bags each containing 30,000 tankahs, captured from the rebels, all of which was conveyed to the treasury⁶. The state appropriated the spoils taken even from Muslim opponents. Qubachah's treasures were all appropriated for the treasury by the victorious *wazir* of Iltutmish; Balban also confiscated the rebel Tughril's treasure¹. In the 13th century, when expedition and raids were the order of the day, this item must have brought in enormous wealth; in 1233 Malik Tayasai's raid into Chandella and Jajapella territories yielded, in the 1/5 alone, something like twenty five lakh *tankahs*².

c18.17

⁵ Ibid, f. 300b.

c18.18

⁶ Minhaj, p. 315.

c18.19

¹ Elliot; II, p. 242. Barani, p. 92.

c18.20

² Minhaj, p. 240.

c18.21

No clear evidence has come down to us to show the manner in which the *zakat* was collected; in fact, there is hardly any mention of it in the contemporary writings. Its highly religious character and the forbidding specifications as to its disbursement³, raise a suspicion that at least in the Memeluke State strict application of the law in this matter was probably not made; Firoz Tughluq's reign, at any rate, provides the earliest record of its collection⁴. It may have been collected whenever possible to defray the cost of the religious endowments and pension to the *ulema* and of the ecclesiastical establishments. Early in Muhammud Tughluq's reign, mention is found of a duty collected on the marchandise crossing the frontier at a rate calculated on the basis of *zakat*⁵. It was in effect only a customs duty and most probably credited to the general revenues. That the income from this source was meant to be so treated is evident from the fact that it was levied on non-Muslims also for whom the rate was doubled⁶.

c18.22

³ See Aghnides; *op. cit.* pp. 298-338, for details of the regulations.

c18.23

⁴ The *Fiqh-i-Firozshahi*, an anonymously compiled work on legal practices in Firoz Tughluq's time, mentions a separate treasury for the *zakat*; cited in Qureshi; p. 93.

c18.24

⁵ Ibn Battuta: *Kitabur Rahla*; Defre. Sang. III, p. 112-113.

c18.25

⁶ See Aghnides: *op. cit.* p. 318.

c18.26

The existence of transit duties and tolls is indicated in the narrative of Balban's envoy journeying to Baniyan who carried a number of slaves for defraying, out of their sale-proceeds, his expenses¹.

c18.27

¹ Minhaj, p. 321.

c18.28

Other cesses. There must have been other taxes also; those abolished by Firoz Tughluq must have been, in one form or another, part of the Sultanate’s normal income². The *Shariah* allows the ruler to claim all underground treasure and mines. The *amir-i-bahr’s* duties probably included the collection of ferry dues and tolls on the waterways.

c18.29

² For these taxes see Qureshi: p. 228-9; other taxes of a similar nature are to be found in Afif: pp. 374-77.

c18.30

Very little can be added respecting finance administration to what has been said above under the *diwan-i-wazarat*. Only once in the *Tabaqat-i-Nasiri* we come across the word *baitul mal*; whether it meant the existence of a separate treasury for the *zakat*, is not clear from the context³. For revenue in the sense of state income the term *khazanah* is generally used. As the government was controlled by the Sultan’s household establishment, the public revenue could be squandered in the persuit of his pleasure; for there does not appear, as yet, the existence of a privy purse for the king. Firoz emptied the treasury on the caterers of pleasure; Kaiqubad, after his return from Awadh, is said to have spent all the surplus revenues, so assiduously collected by Nizamuddin, on his dancing girls⁴.

c18.31

³ Minhaj, p. 182.

c18.32

⁴ Idem; Barani, p. 164.

c18.33

Regarding the Memeluke coinage the masterly studies of Edward Thomas and Nelson Wright must remain works of lasting value. All that can be done here is to give a summary of their investigations and discuss a few incidental points.

c18.34

As Thomas remarked, the Turkish conquerors did not at once introduce a new monetary system, but adapted the existing one to their use. The older currency of mixed metal, known as *dehliwala*, was continued with variations that were slow and very gradual. The design and device of the Hindu coin were retained, more or less, uniformly on the Muslim currency issues. It was Balban, more than sixty years after the conquest of Delhi, who finally replaced the Hindu device of the "bull and horseman" with the sovereign's name inscribed in Devanagari characters¹. In the early years of the occupation, this mixed metal *dehliwala* was therefore the ordinary money. Minhaj, however, almost always uses the term *jital*, the new name which, some years later, came to be applied to a debased adaptation of the *dehliwala*². This *jital* henceforth became the normal billon issue and the *dehliwala* went out of use. Pieces of this type were also coined by Yalduz and the Qarlugh princes during their brief rule in India³.

c18.35

¹ Only one billon issue of Balban has been found to bear the older device: *JASB* 1894, p. 64, no. 1.

c18.36

² Thomas's view that the *jital* was merely a continuation of the *dehliwala*, has been found to require modification, since the *jital* contained a lesser amount of silver and was possibly intended to have a lower exchange value; see Wright, p. 72-73. For the *jital* in Central Asia, see *JASB*, 1924, p. N33.

c18.37

³ Wright, p. 90; Rodgers, p. 42.

c18.38

In gold coinage also, distinctive features of the new regime did not become regular until the reign of Mahmud. Of the three known pieces of Muizzuddin two are mere imitations of the Gahdvala issues, with even the figure of the goddess Lakshmi reproduced exactly, the only identifying element being the sovereign's name inscribed in Indian characters⁴. Even the third one, a unique piece and obviously based on the Islamic dinar type current in his northern dominions⁵ and meant to be a commemorative issue, bears a Devnagri legend and the figure of a horseman, much in the tradition of the Chauhana coins¹. Gold pieces of this latter type were struck by Iltutmish in 608, 614, and 616, but except the Arabic legend, the *kalimah* and the caliph's names, they bear little resemblance to the Ghazni *dinar*². Presumably because of the lack of a weight standard for which the native silver currency does not appear to have supplied a recognised model, the gold coin did not become regular until half a century later³ when, the silver coinage having in the meantime come into general use, it became possible to fit the gold piece into the currency scheme.

c18.39

⁴ Thomas; *Chronicle*, p. 19-20; Wright, p. 6, nos. 4 and 5.

c18.40

⁵ See Lane Poole: *BMC*. no. 6, for the northern dinar.

c18.41

¹ Wright, p. 6, no. 3a.

c18.42

² *Ibid.*, p. 15, nos. 49F and 49G. Apart from these Chauhana features, these gold coins weigh only 70·6 grains, whereas the Ghazni *dinars* weigh 118 to 134 grains.

c18.43

³ Cf. *NC.* 1885, p. 216, for a gold coin, originally ascribed to Raziah, but which was later found to be a forged issue; *NC.* 1921, p. 342.

c18.44

Early currency; native models.

c18.45

Gold coinage.

c18.46

The copper issues of the period also roughly correspond to the weight standard of the older *dehliwala*⁴; they seem to have been known as *adl*⁵.

c18.47

⁴ The conventional weight of 32 *rati* or 16 grains was the ideal to which both the Muslim and Hindu copper and billon issues aimed at; see Thomas, p. 4. For a similarity in variations of weight in both the Hindu and Muslim copper pieces, see Supp. CCIM, I, p. 61-62; II, pp. 80-89, 100-106.

c18.48

⁵ See Wright for such copper coins bearing on the reverse the word *adl*.

c18.49

It is for the introduction of a basic silver coinage that Iltutmish's reign is considered as marking the commencement of Indo-Muslim monetary system. This coin, the ancestor of the modern *rupee*, was the *tankah*, an Indian term indicating a weight of silver, whose earliest use to signify a currency piece is found in a bilingual silver *dirham* of Mahmud of Ghazni, struck at Mahmudpur (Lahore) in 1027⁶. But the Delhi *tankah* was not a *dirham* to whom, except the form and the legend, it bore no intrinsic relationship. For, what made the *tankah* exclusive-

c18.50

⁶ Thomas: *Chronicle*, pp. 47-48.

c18.51

Silver *tankah*.

c18.52

ly Indian, is, besides the name, the weight standard which, as Thomas had shown, followed the indigenous practice. The Memeluke *tankah*, meant to be divisible by the 32-*rati purana*, to which weight the older *dehliwala* approximated, was planned to contain 1 *tola* or 96 *ratis* of silver, this being equal, according to Messrs. Wright and Nevill, not to 175 as Thomas thought, but 172·8 grains. The subsequent gold *tankah* also was adjusted to this standard weight, of which Muizzuddin’s above mentioned Indian *dinar* was perhaps an anticipation.

c18.53

With the adoption of the Arabic legend, doubtless borrowed from the *dinar*, including the *kalimah* and the sovereign’s titles, the *tankah* became the standard monetary unit of the Delhi Sultanate.

c18.54

Experimental pieces. The inclusion of the reigning Caliph’s name on the obverse completed the experimental process, which, judging from the published specimens, was begun as early as 614/1217¹. The first appearance of the Caliph’s name on the obverse of a clearly dated coin, hitherto containing only the *kalimah*, was on the issue of 622/1225, which also contains an elaboration of the Sultan’s title indicating his closer association with the “commander of the Faithful”². From 628/1230-1, appears the name of the Caliph al-Mustansir for in that year Iltutmish received his long-expected investiture, an event most probably commemorated by the undated issue which bears only the *kalimah* and the Caliph’s name³. The legend that was thus finally evolved is represented by No. 31 of Thomas which, with slight variations, continued to be the model of his successors’ *tankah*.

c18.55

² *Ibid*, p. 17, No. 191.

c18.56

¹ Wright, p. 16, no. 49H.

c18.57

³ Thomas: *Chronicle* No. 28; Wright, p. 18, No. 50c.

c18.58

In tracing the evolution of the *tankah* Thomas, and also Wright seem to have confined themselves to the Delhi series, thus taking no notice of the contributions of the Bengal mint. The silver issues of Ghiyasuddin Iwaz, king of Lakhnauti, dated in 616/1219, on the other hand, bear close resemblance, in design and form of the legend, to Iltutmish's final piece of 632/1234¹. His subsequent issues, notably those of 619/1221, and 620/1222, not only include the Caliph al-Nasir's name, but also approximate in weight to the 172-grains standard². They contain, in addition to Iwaz's expanded sovereign titles, also the exact date of the month and year, —a singular feature, which Thomas rightly interpreted as a commemoration of his receipt of investiture from the Caliph³.

c18.59

¹ *JRAS* (N.S.), VI, p. 352, no. 4.

c18.60

² *CCIM*, II, p. 145, no. 3.

c18.61

³ *JRAS* (N.S.), VI, p. 357. The fact that the same date of the month is repeated in both the years, indicating an anniversary, makes the supposition almost a certainty.

c18.62

To Iltutmish however should belong the sole credit of absorbing the existing billon pieces, under the new name of *jital*, as a lower denominational coin to whose weight-scheme, as has been noted above, the *tankah* was adjusted. The *jital* seems deliberately to have been given a lower silver content than its older model; an assay of some specimens revealed approximately 3·6 grains or 2 *ratis* of silver, instead of the 7·8 grains of the *dehlivala*⁴. This enables us to fix its intrinsic value which must have governed its relation with the *tankah*; on the evidence of an assay carried out by Thomas, Wright and Nevill thought a *jital* was valued at 1/12th of a *tankah*. This they have subsequently modified in favour of 1/48, which was, in any case, the *jital*'s exchange value in north India towards the end of the 13th century. On this view, the small silver pieces of Mahmud¹, Balban², and Kaiqubad³, with an average weight of 14·4 grains and called *masha* by Wright, would have the same value as four *jitals*; they might, in fact, have been intended for a four *jital*-piece. From Balban's reign appear a series of bilingual mixed metal pieces whose silver content, being less than that of a *dehliwala*, but more than that of a *jital*, was probably meant to give it an intermediate place in the monetary scale; Wright suggests that its token value represented a two *jital* piece or 1/24 of a *tankah*⁴. It would thus not only fit into, but would also furnish corroborative evidence of, the 48-*jital* *tankah* scheme. Iltutmish's billon currency furnishes an example of what Wright thinks is a three-*jital* piece, i.e., 1/16th of a *tankah*, the ancestor of the modern *anna*⁵. The same value is also indicated by one of Kaiqubad's *jitals* which, containing an average of 8 grains silver per coin, seems to have been meant for the token value of 1/16 of a *tankah*⁶.

c18.63

⁴ Wright, p. 71-73, and 79.

c18.64

¹ *JASB*, 1894, p. 68, no. 21; Rodgers: *IV Supp.* no. 15.

c18.65

² Rodgers: *IV Supp.* No. 20.

c18.66

³ Wright, no. 262A.

c18.67

⁴ P. 80-81.

c18.68

⁵ *Ibid*, p. 28, no. 91.

c18.69

⁶ *Ibid*, p. 81, no, 263.

c18.70

About the exact value of the copper coin in relation to *jital* and the *tankah*, our knowledge is largely inferential. In the first place, we do not know its exact denomination; some of them, as noted earlier, bear the inscription '*adl*', but this term is found subsequently in billon and silver issues also⁷. Shahabuddin Abbas, writing early in the 14th century and referring to Muhammud b. Tughluq's currency, calls his copper coins *fals*, four of which, he adds, exchanged for a jital¹. In the second place, the actual weight of the copper issues, which varies from 71 to 12 grains², does not give us any clue as to their intrinsic proportional value. On the other hand, if Messrs. Wright and Nevill are right in holding, as they do, that the exchange value of copper to silver was 80:1 (that is, 288 grains of copper exchanged for a jital containing 3·6 grains or 2 ratis of silver) then, the intrinsic value of the copper coin calculated in silver, would determine its relation to the higher coins in Delhi transactions. A tankah containing 14·4 grains of silver, for example, would thus exchange for 16 copper pieces of 72 grains each, and for 96, in the case of the smaller issues of 12 grains each. In other words, four 72-grains copper coins would be equivalent to one jital and would thus accord with Shahabuddin’s statement respecting the exchange value of the fals, thus showing that there was little fluctuation in the value of the currency pieces from the 13th century.

c18.71

⁷ Thomas: *Chronicle*, nos. 124 and 180.

c18.72

¹ Quoted in Wright, p. 161.

c18.73

² CCIM, II, pp. 33, 35, nos. 145-46 and 158-59.

c18.74

Copper pieces; fals and adl.

c18.75

Some of Iltutmish’s adls are however found to weigh as little as 8 grains; these, according to Wright, could have borne no token relationship with the higher coins, they being valued at their instrinsic metallic worth. A classification of the weight in the different copper issues may probably lead to the discovery of a sub-divisional gradation similar to what is found in the silver tankah. Some of the recorded specimens weighing 49, 36, 24, 18, and 12 grains³ would, indeed, seem to fall readily into a subdivisional scheme of 2/3, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/6 of the 72-grains (40 rati copper) fals. In silver, the existence of such a gradation is proved by the small pieces of Iltutmish, Mahmud, Balban and Kaiqubad¹. The variations in their weight can easily be classified, according to the revised 172-grains *tankah* standard, into 86·4, 57·6, 28·8, and 14·4 grains. This would give them a value of 1/2, 1/3, 1/6 and 1/12 respectively of the *tankah*. A similar gradation in the gold coin is also indicated by the discovery of a gold piece of Mubarak Khalji weighing 55·7 grains². On the basis of Nevill and Wright's conclusion that the ratio of gold to silver was 1:¹⁰, a gold *tankah* (*tankah-i-talai*) would exchange for ten silver pieces of equal weight.

c18.76

³ Wright No. 261 (Kaiqubad, 49·1 grs.); 249 (Balban, 55 grs.); 131 (Iltutmish, 178 grs.); 239 (Mahmud, 12·4 grs.); 256 (Balban) 12·5 and 10·3 grs.). The weights seem to indicate only an approximate division; allowance should also be made for wear.

c18.77

¹ *JASB*, 1916, p. 129, no. 1: 1890, p. 68, no. 21; 1883, Rodgers supp. III, No. 20; 1916, p. 113, No. 3.

c18.78

² *NC*. 1924, p. 346.

c18.79

Earlier coins bear no mint name; two of Muizzuddin's copper issues, however, seem to indicate their place of origin but the reading is doubtful³. Iltutmish appears to have started the practice of inscribing the mint name on his *tankah*. One of his rare silver coins bears the vague name of *Biladul Hind*⁴; another, dated 616/1219, has been read as mentioning Gour, but the word looks more like Nagaur⁵. The earliest appearance of Delhi as a mint is on a *tankah* of 628/1230-1⁶. The reading of Lakhnauti on another of his silver pieces, dated 633/1235, is however, disputable⁷. A suppositions copper issue of the same monarch bears the name of Multan⁸. The earliest undoubted mention of Lakhnauti occurs in a *tankah* of Raziah⁹. Balban seems to have established a number of new mints; one of his copper pieces was minted at the ‘*Khitta*’ Sultanpur¹⁰. A silver *tankah* of his mentions a mint which has been tentatively read as Khitta Alwar¹.

c18.80

³ Wright, p. 11, No. 35A and 36.

c18.81

⁴ *NC*. op. cit., p. 340.

c18.82

⁵ Wright, No. 49F; *JRAS* (N.S.), VI, p. 348; on the point see also note 7, p. 94, *supra*.

c18.83

⁶ Wright, No. 50F.

c18.84

⁷ *JASB*, 1881, p. 67; *CCIM*, II, p. 21, no. 38; also, intro. p. 6.

c18.85

⁸ *CCIM*. II, p. 25, no. 82.

c18.86

⁹ Thomas: *Chronicle*, p. 107, no. 90.

c18.87

¹⁰ *JASB*, 1904, p. 66; also 1910, p. 566, no. 1.

c18.88

¹ NC, 1924, (V series, I), p. 343.

c18.89

The Memeluke currency showed expert planning and adjustment. It was skilfully incorporated into the Indian weight-standard and made large concessions to the people's notions and circumstances. As a measure of the ability of the Delhi financiers it would be observed, the relative value of the currency pieces remained steady throughout the century. The following table, summarising the points discussed above, will show that the silver tankah was the central coin which ruled all other metal denominations, although, as Nevill and Wright point out, the monetary standard was tri-metallic, the intrinsic value of the pieces governing their token relationship with each other.

c18.90

1 gold tankah of 96-rati or 172·8 gr.=10 silver tankahs of 172·8 gr.

c18.91

| 1 tankah=in silver | 12, mashas, of 14·4 gr. / 6, 28·8 gr. pieces. / 3, 57·6 gr. pieces. / 2, half-tankahs of 86·4 gr. . | |
| in mixed metal: (jital) | 48, 57 gr. coins with 3·6 gr. of / silver. / 16, 3-jital pieces; original / silver content: 10·8 gr. / 24, 2-jital pieces; original / silver content: 6 gr. . | |
| in Copper: (fals or adl) | 192, 71-gr. pieces. / 256, 48-gr. pieces. / 284, 36-gr. pieces. . | |

c18.92

1 jital=4,72-grs. copper adl or fals.

Linked texts (3)

Tāj al-maʾāthir — Ḥasan Niẓāmī, Persian
Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf
Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī — Minhāj al-Dīn Jūzjānī