The Foundation of Muslim Rule in India: A History of the Establishment and Progress of the Turkish Sultanate of Delhi, 1206–1290 A.D. c18.2

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.