The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c8.s4.17

c8.s4.17

Another weakness was that soldiers were habituated to plundering even in peace times. In war loot for the Musulmans was justified,¹⁶⁹ but when there was no war the soldiers were enjoined to behave with the civilians and not to loot or destroy their property.¹⁷⁰ But exceptions apart, rowdyism and extortion had become the norms of their behaviour.¹⁷¹ The massacre of the people of Delhi by Amir Timur was a direct consequence of his soldiers misbehaviour with the market people.¹⁷² The phenomenon repeated itself during Nadir Shahs invasion. As a result, sometimes the rough and disorderly behaviour of the armymen, especially of the temporary troopers, brought discredit to the regime. Again, keeping a large army on a permanent basis had to be ruled out for reasons of finance, security and convenience, and a large portion of the army of the Sultanate remained temporary with loot as its only source of sustenance. Often it was a string of military camps more interested in campaigns and booty-gathering than in administration. Alauddins keeping an army of about five hundred thousand made him resort to collecting fifty percent of the produce as land revenue even when the imperial resources were large and gains and tribute from his conquests were immense. Other rulers were not financially so sound. The army, besides, could not all be stationed at Delhi; it was distributed all over the Sultanate under provisional governors and garrison commanders.¹⁷³ And they could make use of it against the regime itself if they chose to revolt.