The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c11.s1.5

c11.s1.5

Naturally, the Muslim kings gave much thought to finding some means to suppress the recalcitrant elements. Besides other things, one idea that struck Alauddin Khalji (1296-1316) was that it was wealth which was the source of rebellion and disaffection. It encouraged defiance and provided means of revolt. He and his counsellors deliberated that if somehow people could be impoverished, no one would even have time to pronounce the word rebellion.⁸ How was this to be done? The Ulama would not have found it difficult to suggest a remedy. It is laid down in the *Hidaya* that when an infidel country is conquered, the Imam can divide it among the Muslims. He can also leave it in the hands of the original inhabitants, exacting from them a capitation tax, and imposing a tribute on their lands. If the infidels are to lose their lands, their entire moveable property should also be taken away from them. In case they are to continue with cultivating the land, they should be allowed to retain such a portion of their moveable property as may enable them to perform their business.⁹ In India the conquered land was divided among Muslim officers, soldiers and Ulama in lieu of pay or as reward. Some land was kept under *Khalisa* or directly under the control of the regime. But in all cases the tiller of the soil remained the original Hindu cultivator. As an infidel he was to be taxed heavily, although a minimum of his moveable property like oxen, cows and buffaloes (*nisab*) was to be left with him.¹⁰ The principle of the *Shariah* was to leave with him only as much as would have helped him carry on with his cultivation, but at the same time to keep him poor and subservient.