History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c15.s1: Abolition of Land-Grants
History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c15.s1
- Language
- English
Abolition of Land-Grants
c15.s1.1
'Alāuddīn ordered resumption of all landed grants which the nobility, government officials and other rich individuals held as gifts, grants or rewards from the state. It was an old custom to reward nobles, learned men and theologians with grants of land. The grants were not hereditary, but ordinarily the descendants were left unmolested with their possession. These land-holders in course of time became lazy and proud as they had a certain income to fall back upon. Sultan Balban had determined to take harsh measures against the nobility who possessed such lands, but the appeal of Malik Fakhruddīn restrained him from proceeding to extremes. Thus Khans and Maliks were saved from being shorn of all their property. Nevertheless they lost much of their former prestige and power and meekly submitted to that strong sovereign.
c15.s1.2
At the time of his accession 'Alāuddīn had to bestow gold and amās upon barons and influential people to secure their sympthy and support. But the moment he found himself firmly seated in the regal saddle, he punished all such turncoats on the charge of their being disloyal to their former king Jalāluddīn. Besides other punishments which included blinding and execution, they were deprived of all the wealth that they had received from 'Alāuddīn. Even their household goods and private properties did not escape confiscation. Their houses were appropriated for the royal use and their estates were annexed to the crown lands. In 1297 these steps were confined only to a certain section of Maliks and Amīrs; but on the king's return from Ranthambhor the scope of their application was considerably widened. They were now directed against all the rich people of the state, nobles, traders and even petty zamindārs, in short whosoever possessed any property. The king ordered that all the estates, villages and other lands which the people held as *milk* (property), *in‘ām* (remuneration or reward) and *vaqf* (gift), should forthwith be resumed and turned into the *khālsa* or crown lands. It is probable that all assignments were not confiscated, but their management was taken over by the government.² The state officials were asked to treat the people as tyrannically as possible, and try to extort money from them on any and every pretext, so that nobody should be left in possession of much wealth. These instructions were literally carried out and people were compelled to surrender their property. After a short time, says the contemporary chronicler, matters had gone so far that in the houses of the nobility and the Multānī (merchants) not much money remained. All pensions, grants of land and endowments were confiscated, and the people had to earn their livelihood by the sweat of their brow. In such circumstances "no one even had time to pronounce the word 'rebellion'."³
c15.s1.3
² *Baranī* pp. 250-51. The system of granting lands, however, was never given up in the time of ‘Alāuddīn. Malik Qabūl Ulugh Khānī got an estate after his appointment as *shahnah* of grain market (*Baranī* p. 305). Baranī also mentions that the nobles who had no landed property got rationed grain (p. 309) in times of scarcity which clearly indicates that there *were* nobles who had landed property. But the sultan preferred paying in cash, e.g. Amīr Khusrau got a fixed salary. Also see Qureshi: *Administration* p. 119.
c15.s1.4
³ *Baranī* p. 283-84. The language of this passage is awfully defective but the sense is quite clear.
c15.s1.5
The orders regarding the resumption of crown lands, which were meant to impoverish the nobility, were followed by others which affected the chief-men (Muqaddams), petty zamīndārs (*Khūts*) and even ordinary peasants (*balāhar*).⁴ The sultan asked his councillors to suggest ways and means for suppressing the Hindus, whose wealth was as much a "source of rebellion and dis-affection" as that of the nobility. The complaints of 'Alāuddīn about *Khūts* and *Muquddams* were not that they put on white garments and rode horses. They evaded to pay any of the prevalent taxes like *Kharāj*, *Jaziyah*, *Kari* and *Charai*. Not only that, they even charged extra share as their collection labour (Khūti) and whether called or not they never came to the Dīvān and paid no heed to revenue officials.⁵ The king's advisers suggested to him to rescind all the privileges of the landlords (*Khūts* and *Muqaddams*) and to enforce one law regarding the payment of revenue for both landlords and tenants, and not to leave anything as collection charges (حقوق خوطى) so that "the revenue due from the strong might not fall upon the weak." As to the Hindus, much wealth should not be left with them so as to enable them to ride horses, wear fine clothes and indulge in sumptuous and luxurious habits.⁶ It follows from his statement that formerly the revenue due from the strong used to fall upon the weak. In other words the land holders used to exact as much as possible from the peasant and give only the due share of the revenue to the state. Consequently they appropriated to themselves much more than their own share. This surplus income naturally made them rich and even overbearing. As Mr. Moreland aptly remarks, it appears on the study of Barani that the population consisted not "of two elements but of three—Moslems, Hindus, and the 'herds' or peasants. . .the question really at issue was how to break the power of the rural leaders, the chiefs and the headmen of *parganas* and villages. . . ."⁷ That the Hindu chiefs with constant desire for independence were very domineering in their behaviour is quite clear from the complaint of Jalāluddīn against them. They chewd *pān* unmindful of anything, dressed in white and moved among the Musalmans with confort and ease.⁸ Although Barani lends communal colour to it and says that Sultan Jalāluddīn could not tolerate such behaviour on the part of the Hindus as they were the arch enemies of the religion of Mustafā, yet it is clear that the Hindu middle class was economically well-off and in no way inclined to show an attitude of servility . 'Alāūddīn, who had crushed the nobility ruthlessly, was not expected to leave other "refractory" elements unsubdued, and he took measures to see that nobody in his dominions continued to be so rich or powerful as to be a source of danger to the state. But the statement of Ziyāuddīn Baranī that the sultan undertook a series of measures *to crush the Hindus* expresses the sentiments of the orthodox historian, rather than those of the matter of fact sultan.
c15.s1.6
⁴ *Khūt* and *balahar* appear to be vernacular vocables which Barani so frequently uses in his Persian. From the trend of the text it appears that a *Khūt* was a sort of zamīndār or revenue collector and *balahar* was peasant, so that the latter paid revenue to the former. Barani's text has (p. 287) دریں دادن خوطاں (را) بَابَلا هران The را is given in the British Museum Ms. but not in the Bib. Ind. text. Thus a *balahar* gave the revenue to a *Khūt* who deposited it into the royal exchequer. Prof. Hodivala's interpretation (pp. 277-78) is quite convincing when he says that *Khūt* appears a decapitated form of Sanskrit Gramkūta or village headman. Barani also uses it in the same sense.
c15.s1.7
⁵ Barani p. 291.
c15.s1.8
⁶ Ibid. pp. 287-88. Land revenue is known as Kharāj.
c15.s1.9
⁷ Moreland: *Agrarian System* p. 32 footnote.
c15.s1.10
⁸ Baranī pp. 216-17.
c15.s1.11
By another ordinance the emperor fixed the government share at fifty per cent of the produce and laid down the method of assessment. 'Alāūddīn was the first Muslim king in India who fixed the revenue on the actual measurement of land. The system of measurement was known to the Hindu kings and was in practice in the south, but it seems to have fallen into disuse in the north. It was now revived. Not being as good a historian as Abul Fazl, Barani does not give the details with regard to the method and instruments of measurement. He, however, speaks of revenue collection according to "bisvah"⁹ which is known even to this day. From this may be inferred that a uniform system of measurement was introduced. Under this system all the land occupied by the rich and the poor was brought under assessment at the uniform rate of fifty per cent. This measure automatically reduced the chiefs practically to the position of peasants. Their surplus income, which they were suspected of levying stopped, half of the produce was sent to the imperial treasury, and from the remaining half grazing and other sundry taxes were paid, leaving a bare minimum to them. Thus it is certain that the chiefs who had been accustomed to live a life of ease and comfort were reduced to a deplorable position; and if Baranī does not exaggerate, the Hindus, who had the monopoly of agriculture, were impoverished to such an extent that there was no sign of gold or silver left in their homes, and the wives of *Khōts* and *Muqaddams* used to seek jobs in the houses of the Musalmans, work there, and receive wages.¹⁰
c15.s1.12
⁹ بحكم مساحت و وفاء بسوه بکنند —
c15.s1.13
¹⁰ Baranī p. 288.
c15.s1.14
The demand of fifty per cent of the gross produce was a very harsh measure indeed. Under Hindu sovereigns the state demand was one-fourth to one-sixth. The revenue rose to one-third or fell as low as one-sixth of the produce as the emergency required.¹¹ Under Muslim sovereigns like Iltutmish and Balban also the rate does not seem to have risen above onethird. The demand of ‘Alāūddīn for one-half, therefore, could not have been welcome either to the landlords or the peasantry. But this demand was not unlawful as Muslim Jurists permit fifty per cent. as the maximum revenue.¹² Moreover, the Sultan’s orders about prohibition and closing of gambling dens meant a considerable loss to the royal exchequer.¹³ ‘Alāūddīn made up the deficiency by raising land revenue to the permissible maximum. The revenue was accepted in cash as well as in kind, but since the Sultan accumulated grain in state granaries he preferred to take the revenue in kind from certain fertile regions near the capital.
c15.s1.15
¹¹ Moreland: *Agrarian System* p. 5. *Manusmriti*, chapter VIII. *Arthashastra*, p. 140.
c15.s1.16
¹² Aghnides, p. 378.
c15.s1.17
¹³ Barani p. 284. خراجھائے بے اندازہ از دفاتر دور کردند
c15.s1.18
After the realisation of land revenue and other taxes which will be described hereafter, the peasants were compelled to sell their surplus grain to the travelling merchants (*caravaniāns*), who were assisted by government officials in obtaining it. In short, if the revenue regulations of ‘Alāūddīn were meant to crush high landlords, they were in no way less prejudicial to the interests of the peasantry.
c15.s1.19
Beside the land revenue ‘Alāūddīn levied house tax and grazing tax.¹⁴ According to Ziyāuddin all milk producing animals like cows and goats were to be taxed. Baranī neither mentions limitations of, nor exemptions from, the grazing tax. But according to Ferishtah, animals up to two pairs of oxen, two buffaloes, two cows and ten goats were free from taxation.¹⁵ The taxable minimum (niṣāb) in Muslim law is thirty heads for cows and buffalos and forty for goat and sheep.¹⁶ Considering this *niṣāb*, the figure of Ferishtah is quite normal: but since neither Ferishtah's source of information is know nor does Baranī talk of any exemption, Ferishtah's figures cannot be literally accepted. It seems probable that 'Alāuddīn exempted only such animals as were indispensable for cultivation, but not cows, buffalos and goats to the number of a dozen as they gave milk, went for pasture and were a source of income to their possessor.¹⁷
c15.s1.20
¹⁴ The text of Barani reads p. 287. ازگاو میش یا گوسپند هرچه شیر آور بود چرای بستانند و چرای تعین شدوازپس هر خانه سکونت گری طلب نمایند — The words clearly mean that a tax was levied on pasturable animals, and besides that from every house (از هر خانه) a residence tax (سکونت گری) was taken. Dr. Qureshi (*Administration* pp. 232-33) thinks that “گری” “is obviously a mistake; گڑھی sounds more convincing”. He does not give any reasons for reading گڑھی for گری. It may be pointed out that *karī* or *karhī*, which is altogether a different tax from house tax (سکونت گری) has been mentioned by Baranī on pp. 288 and 289 and should not be confused with the latter. For implications about house tax in Muslim law see Aghnides, p. 288.
c15.s1.21
¹⁵ Ferishtah, p. 109.
c15.s1.22
¹⁶ Aghnides, pp. 251-52, 253-54.
c15.s1.23
¹⁷ See *Zakāt* taxes.
c15.s1.24
Another tax realised was *karī* (کری) or *Karhī* (کرھی). Nothing definite is known about this tax. It appears that the word is a derivative from the Sanskrit word kar (कर) which means tax. Barani does not give any details about it and it can safely be presumed that *karī* was one of the various minor taxes which from time to time have been realised in Hindu and Muslim periods of Indian history.
c15.s1.25
*Jaziyah* was levied from non-Muslims as the cash equivalent to "the assistance which they would be liable to give if they had not persisted in their unbelief, because living as they do in a Muslim state, they must be ready to defend it.¹⁸ Moreover, the main object in levying the tax is the subjection of the infidels to humiliations . . . . and . . . . during the process of payment, the źimmī is seized by the collar and vigorously shaken and pulled about in order to show him his degradation. . . .”¹⁹ As time passed *Jaziyah* could not be levied in such spirit and became a tax, pure and simple. *Jaziyah* was not imposed upon women and children, the insane and the imbecile.
c15.s1.26
¹⁸ Aghnides p. 399.
c15.s1.27
¹⁹ See Yūsuf in Aghnides pp. 406-7, 530. Compare in this connection Qazī Mughīs’s inveighing to Sultan ‘Alāūddīn about the status of the źimmī. So far as the status of the źimmī in Muslim law was concerned the information of the Qazi was correct.
c15.s1.28
The Sultans of Delhi charged ten, twenty and forty *tankahs* as *Jaziyah* from the poor, the middle class and the rich respectively.²⁰ ‘Alāūddīn realized *Jaziyah* from his Hindu subjects, but he does not seem to have imposed it in the spirit of orthodox jurists cited above. Complaining about the contumacy of *Khūts* and *Muqaddms* the Sultan said, “they themselves did not pay any of the taxes—*Kharāj*, *Jaziya*, *Kari* and *Charai*.”²¹ This clearly shows that *Jaziyah* was one of the major taxes prevalent. The vanquished Deccan princes sent annual tribute to the imperial capital. What they sent may be termed as *Jaziyah*, but it was more of a political tribute rather than a tax levied from non-Muslims. Of the same nature were the tributes from the Rajput states.
c15.s1.29
²⁰ ‘Afīf: *Tarikh-i-Fīrōz Shahi*, Bib. Ind. Text, p. 383.
c15.s1.30
²¹ Barani p. 291. اصلا از خراج جزيه و کری و چرای خوديك جيتيل نميد هند —
c15.s1.31
Contemporary chroniclers do not give the figures of the revenue collected from *Jaziyah*, but they do not give figures for *kharāj* and other taxes either. It is, however, reasonable to think that the income from *Jazīyah* was considerable since it was levied from so vast a population of non-believers.²² *Jazīyah* was realised only from non-Muslims and was naturally cancelled by conversion to Islam. Thus, though conversion to Islam meant glorification of the faith it also meant loss of income to the state. Consequently the Sultans who were more intent on acquiring money, and not very much religiously inclined, must have disfavoured conversion. It is obvious that such kings cannot receive so favourable a treat at the hands of the orthodox *‘ulamā* as sultans like Fīrōz Tughlaq, who, strangely enough, was enthusiastic both about *Jazīyah* and conversion at the same time. To astute administrators like Balban, ‘Alāuddīn and Muḥammad Tughlaq replenishment of the royal exchequer was of greater importance than conversion of infidels. They suffered the non-Muslims not necessarily because they were broad-minded or cosmopolitan in outlook but also because they gained by non-Muslims remaining non-Muslims. ‘Alāuddīn succeeded as king, what if he invited the anathema of the priestly class.
c15.s1.32
²² In the time of Aurangzeb *Jazīyah* from Gujarat alone brought a very large amount of revenue. See Elliot relevant vols.
c15.s1.33
*Khums*, as the word signifies, was one-fifth share of the state in the spoils (*ghanāim*) of war. The four-fifths share was distributed among the soldiers. Sultan ‘Alāuddīn, who was always much in need of money and also disliked people to grow opulent, disregarded the law and appropriated four-fifths to the state treasury. This scale continued to obtain till Fīrōz Tughlaq reverted to the old practice of appropriating one-fifth of the booty to the exchequer.
c15.s1.34
*Zakāt* is a religious tax levied only from the Muslims. By paying *zakāt* and thereby sharing his property with the needy, a Muslim purifies himself of avarice. Thus the payment of *zakāt* is an obligation between God and man and it cannot be collected by force.²³ But since it is an act of piety to pay *zakāt* and since it is based on a clear injunction of the Qurān it must be realised by the Imām. *Zakāt* is not levied on primary necessaries of life like dwelling houses, clothes, utensils, slaves and animals used for ploughing or riding.²⁴ It is charged only on "apparent property" such as gold and silver, herds and merchandise, and only when such property exceeds a certain taxable minimum (*niṣāb*). The Muslim jurists have been very liberal in fixing the *niṣāb*. On non-apparent property the owner has an option to pay whatever he likes without being coerced in anyway. Generally speaking *zakāt* amounted to 1/40th of the property.
c15.s1.35
²³ Aghnides p. 297.
c15.s1.36
²⁴ Aghnides p. 207. Tripathi: *Some Aspects of Muslim Administration* p. 345.
c15.s1.37
In India *zakāt* ceased to be a religious tax imposed only on the Muslims, though an orthodox sovereign like Firoz Shah included it in the list of state taxes. Here *zakāt* was levied in the shape of import duties, and grazing fee on all milk producing animals or those which went for pasture and was realised both from Muslims and non-Muslims.²⁵ According to the Islamic law import duties for Muslims were 5 per cent and for non-Muslims 10 per cent of the commodity.²⁶
c15.s1.38
²⁵ Dr. Qureshi (*Administration*, p. 93) states that "*zakāt* was levied by the sultans of Delhi, though the chronicles do not expressly mention this fact. The reason for this silence seems to be that they were writing for Muslim readers, to whom the levy of *zakāt* by an Islamic administration would be too obvious a fact to be mentioned". The argument is not convincing. *Zakāt* tax was perhaps the most difficult to assess and still more difficult to realise. It was levied on "apparent property". Now, we know that in medieval times people used to hide their possessions lest the sultan should come to know of their wealth. It was so especially in 'Alā-uddīn's times. Thus no *zakāt* could be realised on property carefully enclosed in the four-walls of a house or buried underground. Moreover it is human nature to avoid payment of a tax until it is almost forcibly realised by the state, and
c15.s1.39
²⁶ Aghnides p. 318.
c15.s1.40
*Revenue Officials.*
c15.s1.41
A large number of graded officilas were appointed to carry on the revenue administration. The credit of the success with which the orders of the Sulatn were enforced, and full share of the revenue realise, goes to the deputy vazīr (Naib vazīr) Sharf Qayini.²⁷ For several years this officer made strenuous efforts to apply the ordinances of the sultan to most parts of northern India. He was successful in introducing the system of measurement in the district about Delhi like Pālam, Revārī, Afghānpūr, Amroha, Badaon and koel, as also in the divisions of Deopalpūr, Lahore, Samanah and Sunam in the west, upto Katehar (Rohilkhan) in the east and portions of Malwa and Rajputana (e.g. Bayana and Jhain) in the south, but not in Gujarat, Malwa and Avadh. Thus it is clear that the system of measurement, 50 per cent revenue, and grazing tax, were enforced in the central part of the country and some other provinces in north and west but not in the whole of the empire. Nevertheless
c15.s1.42
²⁷ The Calcutta text of Baranī has (p. 288) شرف قائنى but Major Fuller's Ms. has شرف قاینی. The latter is the correct form and is well known in Persia.
c15.s1.43
if a man can avoid payment with impunity he would never like to pay. *Zakāt* could not be realised forcibly since "compulsion vitiates its character". Again it could only be applied to a property held in possession of the owner for at least one year. If a person, just to avoid *zakāt*, transferred his taxable property to somebody else even a day before the date of payment, he escaped from making payment (Aghnides pp. 530-33). Lastly, the collectors of *zakāt* are not subject to audit. There was no check to a collector's realising a certain sum of money in *zakāt* and depositing a lesser amount in the exchequer. Such a vague tax had no place in 'Alāūddīn's system of revenue administration.
c15.s1.44
even this was a great achievement for 'Alāūddīn and his deputy minister Sharf Qayinī, to whose accomplishments and efficiency Baranī pays a well deserved tribute.
c15.s1.45
Sharf Qayinī took drastic steps to remove the maladministration in the revenue department. The conversion of large areas into crown lands, and their direct relations with the state necessaited steps for realisation of revenue in full. "One of the standing evils in the revenue collection consisted in defective realisation which usually left large balances to be accounted for. As the revenue system was yet in the making and the machinery for assessment and collection was yet undeveloped, unrealised balances were probably had reduced them to beggary and had made their flesh sore. The strict vigilance of 'Alāūddīn over the conduct of the *patwaris* and *amils*, the inspection of their revenue books by superior officers and the sultan himself, and the ruthless punishments with which they were visited for accepting bribes and falsifying accounts, brought the lower offices of the revenue department into disrepute. The revenue officials regarded their office worse than "plague", as for five hundred or one thousand *tankahs* they were kept in jails for many years. Baranī hyperbolically says that one would not give his daughter in marriage to a revenue official, while the office of the superintendent was only accepted by one who had no regard for his life, for these officials passed most of their days in jail frequently receiving blows and kicks.³¹ At last the stern punishments of 'Alāūddīn had their effect. Ziyāuddīn affirms that it was no longer possible for any one to take even a *tankah* from either a Hindu or a Musalman by way of bribe or extortion.³²
c15.s1.46
³¹ Ibid. p. 289.
c15.s1.47
³² Ibid. p. 289.
c15.s1.48
Before closing the discussion on revenue administration it may be pointed out that 'Alāūddīn neither abolished the iqta' nor the Khūṭī system. He only abrogated the privileges of the landlord class, crushed their contumacy and compelled them to lead a life of frugality if not of destitution. By his excessive demands he in no way benefited the peasantry for which Ziyāuddīn bitterly criticises the monarch. It is certain that 'Alāūddīn's regulations were an outcome of political exigencies yet it was not impossible for him to be less tyrannical to the tillers of the soil, to the merchants and to his own revenue officials whose flesh he made "sore". Everything in 'Alāūddīn's administration smacked of force, and if Shaikh Bashīr pointed out that 'Alāūddīn's government had very shallow foundations, he was not incorrect. Economic prosperity and not force is the foundation of a stable government. But ‘Alā’uddīn wanted to improverish his countrymen so that the word “rebellion” should not pass their lips.
c15.s1.49
But Baranī’s invectives that ‘Alāuddīn’s measures were meant to crush the Hindus as such are quite baseless. Noblemen, traders, cultivators all bore the burnt of ‘Alā-ūddīn’s regulations, but since agriculture was confined mainly to the Hindus they suffered most. Land was the main source of state revenues then, as it is now, and the sultan increased it to the maximum possible. The result was the grinding down of the peasant class, while the *Khūts* and *muqaddams* were reduced to the status of low peasantry, shorn of their time-honoured privileges.
Cites (3)
- Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
- Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian