The Cambridge History of India, Vol. III: Turks and Afghans v3.c20.508

Language: English

v3.c20.508.1

Indian historians praise Fīrūz as the most just, merciful, and beneficent ruler since the days of Nāsir-ud-dīn Mahmūd, son of Iltutmish, and there is some similarity between the characters of the two, though Fīrūz was in almost every respect superior. Both were weak rulers, but Fīrūz was far less weak and vacillating than Mahmūd, and both were benevolent, but the benevolence of Fīrūz was more active than that of Mahmūd. Fīrūz possessed far more ability than Mahmūd, and his weakness consisted largely in an indolent man's distaste for the details of business and in unwillingness to cause pain. His benevolence was indiscriminate, for he showed as much indulgence to the corrupt official as to the indigent husbandman, and his passion for constructing works of public utility was due probably as much to vanity as to benevolence. The discontinuance of the practice of demanding large gifts from placeholders was intended to relieve the poorer classes, on whom the burden ultimately fell, and was perhaps not wholly without effect, but placeholders continued to enrich themselves, and many amassed large fortunes. Fīrūz Shāh's connivance at corruption and his culpable leniency destroyed the effect of his own reforms. Old and inefficient soldiers were not compelled to retire but were permitted to provide substitutes of whose fitness they were the judges, and the annual inspection of cavalry horses was rendered futile by the many evasions devised by the king himself.

v3.c20.508.2

One story is told of his overhearing a trooper bewailing to a comrade the hardship of being compelled to submit his horse for inspection. He called the man to him and asked him wherein the hardship lay, and he explained that he could not expect that his horse would be passed unless he offered the inspector at least a gold *tanga*, and Fīrūz gave him the coin. The perversity of the act is not perceived by the historian who records it, and he merely praises Fīrūz for his benevolence. Similar laxity prevailed in the thirty-six departments of state, and in the checking and auditing of the accounts of fiefs and provincial governments. There was a great show of order and method, and a pretence was made of annually scrutinising all accounts, but notwithstanding all formalities 'the king was very lenient, not from ignorance of accounts and business, which he understood well, but from temperament and generosity.' The working of the mint supplies an instance of the fraud and peculation which were rife. In 1370–71 Fīrūz extended his coinage by minting, for the convenience of the poorer classes, pieces of small denominations, and the integrity of the officers of the mint was not proof against the opportunity for peculation offered by this large issue.

v3.c20.508.3

Two informers reported that the six *jītal* pieces were a grain short of standard purity, and the minister, Maqbūl Khānjahān, whose anxiety to hush the matter up suggests his complicity, sent for Kajar Shāh, the mintmaster, who was the principal offender, and directed him to devise a means of establishing, to the king's satisfaction, the purity of the coin. Kajar Shāh arranged that the coins should be melted before the metal was assayed, approached the goldsmiths whose duty it would be to conduct the experiment in the king’s presence, and desired them secretly to cast into the crucible sufficient silver to bring the molten metal to the standard of purity. They objected that in accordance with the ordinary precautions on such occasions they would be so denuded of clothing that they would be unable to secrete any silver on their persons, but offered to do what was required if the silver could be placed within their reach. Kajar Shāh accordingly arranged that the necessary quantity of silver should be concealed in one of the pieces of charcoal used for heating the crucible, and the goldsmiths succeeded in conveying it into the vessel without being observed, so that the king was hoodwinked and the metal, when assayed, was found to be of the standard purity.

v3.c20.508.4

Kajar Shāh’s presumed innocence was publicly recognised by his being carried through the city on one of the royal elephants, and the two informers were banished, but both the investigations and the public justification of the mintmaster were mere sops to public opinion, for Kajar Shāh was shortly afterwards dismissed. The comments of the contemporary historian are even more interesting, as an example of the view which an educated an intelligent man could then take of such an affair, than his simple record of the facts. He can see nothing wrong in the concealment of a crime, in the punishment of the innocent and the vindication of the guilty, or in the deception practised on the simple Fīrūz, but commends Maqbūl Khānjahān for having dexterously averted a public scandal. The same historian, who has nothing but approval for whatever was established or permitted in the reign of Fīrūz, applauds another serious abuse. Of the irregular troops some received their salaries in cash from the treasury but those stationed at a distance from the capital were paid by transferable assignments on the revenue. A class of brokers made it their business to buy these drafts in the capital at one-third of their nominal value and to sell them to the soldiers in the districts at one-half. Shams-i-Sirāj ‘Afīf has no word of condemnation for the fraud perpetrated on the unfortunate soldier, and nothing but commendation for a system which enabled so many knaves to enrich themselves without labour.