History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c17.s2.15

c17.s2.15

Now, this was the other extreme. If profiteering and selling short weight and cheating the purchasers in various ways deserved discouragement, the extremely severe punishments which led the shopkeepers to weigh more than the actual quantity indicates a lack of far-sightedness on the part of the king. How long could trade flourish under conditions in which the shopkeepers worked without getting sufficient profits. The market regulations of 'Alāúddīn did not permit enough profit to the tradespeople and consequently lent no encouragement to trade and commerce. The king did not permit even the least flexibility in prices and if hope of gain is lacking there can be no incentive to trade. Moreover, the regulations which hardly benefitted the traders were forced down their throats. Even after giving due consideration to the exaggeration in which Barani is prone to indulge, the facts that such severe penalties were inflicted on brokers in horse, cattle and slave markets, that even life became so distasteful to them and they longed for death, and deficiency in weights was made up by slicing off an equivalent quantity of flesh from the person of shopkeepers, clearly show that the market people must have been disgusted. That there was no encouragement to trade is clearly borne out by the fact that the merchants carrying on trade in food stuffs as well as other commodities were *compelled* to take up their abodes in Delhi. They had to sign agreements making them individually and collectively responsible for one another's good conduct, and the authority of state officials extended even over their wives and children.³⁴ It can well be surmised how the merchants would have chafed under the rigorous regulations of the monarch and how they would have rejoiced to see such a state of affairs come to an end.