History of the Khaljis, A.D. 1290–1320 c19.16

c19.16

Reference may here be made to the charge of bigotry levelled against 'Alāuddīn. A thorough study of the sultan's character clearly shows that religious considerations did not prompt him to oppress the Hindus in any way. Under his vigorous administration intriguing nobility, profiteering merchants and contumacious landholders suffered terribly, while the middle class traders and poor peasants also could not escape the privations that followed in the train of his rigorous laws. If the bulk of the population of the country as well as most of the landholders and cultivators were Hindus, it was but natural that the Hindus would suffer most from his tariff and revenue regulations. If the kingdoms 'Alāuddīn attacked belonged to the Hindu Rajas, if at the time of warfare their Hindu subjects suffered, and if the war indemnity taken from the vanquished Hindu princes was called *jaziyah* in official terminology, it was not at all due to the fact that ‘Alāuddīn was a bigot. There is no instance to prove that ‘Alāuddīn oppressed some people simply because they were Hindus and favoured some because they were Musalmans. If traders suffered, it was not that only Hindu traders suffered, if the revenue regulations were oppressive to the people, they were not enforced against the Hindus only, and if the nobility were suppressed it was not that only the Hindu nobles were suppressed. In fact ‘Alāuddīn’s treatment of the nobility was perhaps the most severe and there were very few, if any, Hindu noblemen in ‘Alāuddīn’s days. It must, however, be remembered that in the early days of Muslim rule in India the sultans had to establish their power and rule on a race different from theirs in religion, society and culture. Naturally they could not trust them with high administrative jobs. Moreover, the sultans themselves occasionally sought advice from learnedmen—*maulvis* and *mullas*—who were generally orthodox and not infrequently bigoted. Constant wars, of course of a military and political character, were fought with Hindu Rajas and a subconscious feeling of animosity existed between the Turkish ruling class, consisting of the sultan and his bureaucracy, and the conquered people. Under such circumstances it is too much to expect from early Turkish sultans like Iltutmish, Balban and ‘Alāuddīn to be very liberal towards the native population and throw open posts to the people of all religions. That is why we hardly find many, if any, talented Hindu officers being appointed to high administrative posts in ‘Alāuddīn’s time. In the Mughal period things were different. Under Akbar and his successors almost the whole of India had come under Muslim domination and the Hindus could safely be trusted with high posts and treated equally with the Muslims. Thus if Balban and ‘Alāuddīn were not inclined to give equal opportunities to the Hindus it was but natural. Besides this, there is no proof that ‘Alāuddīn oppressed the Hindus because of their religion.