The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c9.s1: The Nobles
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c9.s1
- Language
- English
The Nobles
c9.s1.1
The nobles constituted the ruling bureaucracy. In the early years of Muslim rule (1206-1399) foreign adventurers and warriors monopolised appointments to high offices. In the beginning the Turks formed the bulk of the ruling elite. Besides, Persians, Abyssinians, Egyptians, Afghans and converted Mongols also continued to obtain high positions. Under the Lodi sultans (1451-1526), Afghan adventurers of various tribes and clans flocked to India like ants and locusts. Even in the Mughal times (1526-1707-1857) the imperial service remained predominantly foreign with Iranis and Turanis forming the core of the cadre. The Turanis hailed from Central Asia where the Turkish language was spoken. Iranis comprised the Persian speaking people and belonged to the region presently extending from Iraq and Iran to Afghanistan.
c9.s1.2
The Mughal nobles were also known as Mansabdars. The *Mansabdars* were not only government officers, but also the richest class in the empire. They formed a closed aristocracy; entrance into this class was not usually possible for the common people, whatever their merits. Naturally, therefore, the most important factor which was taken into account when nobles were appointed was heredity. The *Khanazads*, the scions of royalty and sons and descendants of *Mansabdars*, had the best claim to such appointments.
c9.s1.3
The Indian Muslim nobles, who were local converts, also rose to be officers in the upper cadres, but foreigners were always preferred. The fourteenth century Persian chronicler Ziyauddin Barani, who was born in India but traced his ancestry to a Turki Noble, credits the foreigner Turks with all possible virtues and the Indian Muslims with all kinds of imperfections.¹ The invectives he hurls on the converted Sultan Nasiruddin Khusrau Shah (C.E. 1320), are too well known to need repetition.² Muhammad Tughlaq always preferred foreign Muslims to Indians for appointment as officers. The rebellion of Ain-ul-mulk Multani (1339) during his reign was a symptom of the resentment felt by the India-born nobles against this policy of prejudice. In turn Khan-i-Jahan, a Telingana Brahmin convert, dominated the court of Sultan Firoz Tughlaq. The career of Mahmud Gawan, the minister of the Bahmani Sultan Muhammad III (1463-1482), illustrates both the reasons for which preference was given to foreigners and the jealousy it engendered. Foreign nobles looked down upon Indian Muslim nobles, and considered them as lowborn, although not all foreign Muslims were of high lineage.
c9.s1.4
Right through the Muslim rule, low origin foreigners used to come as individuals and in groups to seek employment in India. Writing about the foreign element in the Mughal nobility in seventeenth century Bernier says that the Omarahs mostly consist of adventurers from different nations who entice one another to the court; and are generally persons of low descent, some having been originally slaves, and the majority being destitute of education. The Mogol raises them to dignities, or degrades them to obscurity; according to his own pleasure and caprice.³ W.H. Moreland, however, does not consider all foreign immigrants as of low descent. He says that in Mughal India there were huge prizes to be won and one need not wonder that the service should have attracted to the court the ablest and most enterprising men from a large portion of Western Asia.⁴ High and low, foreign and Indian, the Muslim nobles after all belonged to one and the same cadre, and they tried to come closer together.⁵ On the one hand, foreign Muslims used to become locals after the lapse of a few generations. Bernier writes that the children of the third and fourth generation (of Uzbegs, Persians, Arabs and Turks) are held in much less respect than the new corners.⁶ On the other hand, the low-born Indian Muslim became elitist with rise in economic status. There was a saying: Last year I was a *julaha*, this year a *shaykh*; and the next year, if the harvest be good, I shall be a *saiyyad*.⁷ Belonging to Islam was a great cementing force, and, whatever the colour of the skin, all Muslim nobles tried to feel as one, as belonging to the ruling elite, as searching for exotic roots. It was aristocratic on the part of the orthodox Muslim to feel that he was in India, but not of it. He durst not strike his roots deep into the native soil. He must import traditions, language and culture. His civil and criminal law must be derived from the writings of jurists and the decisions of judges in Baghdad and Cairo. The Muslim in India was an intellectual exotic; he considered it *infra dig* to adapt himself to his environment.⁸
c9.s1.5
Besides the competition between Indian and foreign Muslim nobles, there was also constant contest between Muslim and Hindu nobles. With the permanent establishment of Muslim rule, the policy of the sultans was generally to keep the Hindus excluded and appoint only Muslims. But the Hindus possessed native intelligence and experience, sons of the soil as they were, and many of the best Hindus had to be employed, especially during the Mughal period. The Hindus in a way were indispensable. To them belonged, according to Badaoni, half the army and half the land. Neither the Hindustanis (Indian Muslims) nor the Moghuls can point to such grand lords as the Hindus have among themselves. Bernier too did not fail to notice this.⁹
c9.s1.6
These nobles were in attendance on the king in the capital or in camp, and in outstations held civil and military assignments, as governors of provinces or commanders of the army. Indeed they were expected to cultivate versatility, there being no distinction between civil and military appointments and duties. Raja Birbal, after many years as court wit, met his death fighting Yusafzais as commander of troops on the frontier while Abul Fazl, the most eminent literary figure of the time, distinguished himself in military operations in the Deccan.
c9.s1.7
The nobles were called Umara and were graded as Khans, Maliks, Amirs and Sipehsalars in the Sultanate period, and as Mansabdars under the Mughals. According to Barani a Sarkhail commanded ten horsemen; a Sipehsalar ten Sarkhails; an Amir ten Sipahsalar; a Malik ten Amirs; and a Khan, ten Maliks.¹⁰ According to the author of *Masalik-ul-Absar*, a Khan commanded more or less 100,000 troops, an Amir 10,000, a Malik a thousand, and so on.¹¹ The term Amir was normally used in a generic sense to denote a high officer. In Akbars time and after, all the great men of the Mughal Empire were graded and appointed to a *mansab* (rank) in the imperial service. From the lowest rank, that of the commander of ten, upto the rank of 400 an officer was known as Mansabdar. From 500 onwards a noble was known as Amir, or Khan, or Khan-i-Azam. They were all generally spoken of as Umara.
c9.s1.8
The Umara were highly paid. Their remuneration was paid sometimes in the form of a cash salary, at others by the grant of a revenue assignment or *iqta*. The *iqta* was basically a salary collected at source. According to the chroniclers of the Sultanate period every Khan received two lakh *tankahs*, every Malik from 50 to 60 thousand *tankahs*, every Amir from 40 to 50 thousand *tankahs*, and so on.¹² The salaries during the Mughal period were equally high. It has been computed by expert opinion that a commander of 5000 could count on at least Rs. 18,000 a month under Akbar and his successor. He could even improve upon this amount if he practised judicious economy in his military expenditure and had the good fortune of securing a profitable *jagir*. A commander of 1000 could similarly count on receiving Rs. 5000 a month (equal to from rupees 25,000 to 30,000 in 1914), while a commander of 500 would have received the equivalent of Rs. 5000 to 6000 at the same rate. While therefore the precise figures are uncertain, it appears to be reasonable to conclude that the higher ranks of the Imperial Service were remunerated on a scale far more liberal than that which now prevails in India (C. 1914), or for that matter in any portion of the world.¹³
Cites (1)
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian