The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c9.s3: Bribery and Corruption
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India c9.s3
- Language
- English
Bribery and Corruption
c9.s3.1
Such high expenses of building spacious mansions, exchanging costly presents, maintaining a large harem of wives and concubines -in short, living in style at home and indulging in pompous display outside, could not be met by the aristocracy from their salaries alone. Therefore, the nobles augmented their income by other means. There were many sources from which extra amounts of money could come to their coffers, like enjoying a large military command, a profitable political appointment and a lucrative revenue assignment, and these were all inter-connected, all providing opportunities of corruption and exploitation.
c9.s3.2
Every nobleman or Mansabdar was alloted a quota of troops which he was expected to maintain. From the very beginning of Turkish rule the conquered land used to be distributed by the king among army officers, nobles, government officials and even soldiers as gifts, grants and rewards and also in lieu of personal salary, and for paying their soldiers. These grants were not hereditary, and were given as pay for military service. But in course of time the land-holders continued in possession of their land without rendering any military service. On inquiry it was found by Sultan Balban that about 2,000 cavalry officers had received villages in the Doab alone by way of pay during the time of Iltutmish, but for the next forty years or more many of the grantees had become old and infirm, or had died. But their sons and even slaves continued to live off the lands as if they were an inheritance. Many of them were clever enough to get the assignments recorded in their own names in the books of the Ariz-i-Mumalik obviously by bribing the officials according to their means by wine, goats, chicken, pigeon, butter and food-stuffs from their villages to the Deputy Muster-Master and his officials.⁴⁰
c9.s3.3
Sultan Balban tried to improve matters and so did many other rulers but corruption remained entrenched.
c9.s3.4
The salary of the soldiers and expenditure on their horses usually formed part of the pay of the Umara or Mansabdars who were expected to spend it on them. But this system gave the nobleman an opportunity to retain some money from every mans pay and prepare false returns of the horses he was supposed to provide. Many of the lords who hold the rank of 5000 horse, do not keep even 1000 in their employ.⁴¹ This practice was universal throughout the medieval period. It rendered the Amirs income very considerable, particularly when he was so fortunate as to have some good *jagirs* or suitable lands assigned to him. For some of the officers received double, and even more than that, in excess of the estimated value of their grants.⁴² There was thus the practice which prevails too much at all times of purchasing governorships against hard cash. Sometimes the king assigned a governorship to the highest bidder. The governor or farmer of revenue so appointed had to compensate himself by mercilessly fleecing the merchants and peasants of the province.⁴³ In this way many people without the smallest patrimony, some even originally wretched slaves, involved in debt, became great and opulent lords overnight. Bernier even complains that the Great Mogol did not select for his service gentlemen of opulent and ancient families; sons of his citizens, merchants and manufacturers affectionately attached to their sovereign and willing to maintain themselves by means of their own patrimony Instead he is surrounded by parasites raised by the dregs of society. That is how the misery of this ill-fated country is increased.⁴⁴
c9.s3.5
For many an Umara just looted both the government and the people all at once. In this regard certain misconceptions may be removed at the outset. It is generally believed that corruption flourishes in a democracy or a soft state where no one can be punished until proved guilty, and that despotic rulers would not brook it. Another idea repeatedly put forward is that it is poverty and low salaries that breed corruption, and that it is bound to be reduced in proportion to the rise in emoluments and standard of living.
c9.s3.6
However, on a study of the records of medieval times, when autocracy was the order of the day, we find that corruption was quite well-grounded, and people and the government were unabashedly cheated. Cheating of the people and the government are almost synonymous. In the fourteenth century too, those who cheated the people could not rest at that, and they took every opportunity of defrauding the government whenever an opportunity presented itself. One such opportunity came when Muhammad bin Tughlaq introduced his famous token currency. Another, when he struck upon the novel (now commonly practised) idea of having large-scale farm cultivation. An area of about 45 miles square (30 *krohs*) was set aside for intensive farming in which not a patch was to be left uncultivated at any time by changing crops constantly. A hundred *shiqdars* were appointed to supervise the project. They promised to cultivate thousands of *bighas* of land and also to reclaim waste land. Each one of them received fifty thousand *tankahs* in cash as advance (*sondhar*) from the State. But they turned out to be greedy and dishonest persons. They cheated the government, squandered the money on personal needs and did not care to cultivate the allotted area. In this way the State lost not less then 70,00,000 *tankahs* in all. Of the advance not even a hundredth or a thousandth part could be recovered and the avaricious *shiqdars* embezzled the whole amount.⁴⁵ And all this callousness was there about a measure which had been undertaken to ameliorate famine conditions.
c9.s3.7
A few more instances of corruption from the Sultanate period may be mentioned to appreciate the depth and extensivity of the malady. During the reign of Firoz Shah the profession of soldiers was made hereditary. Also old men were not retired on compassionate ground and efficiency of the army naturally suffered. Over and above this, corruption was galore in the Diwan-i-Arz. Horses of little value were brought to the Diwan and were passed as serviceable, obviously by greasing the palms of the clerks. In this reference a story narrated by Shams Siraj Afif is worth citing. Once the Sultan overheard a soldier complaining to a friend that because he did not have the necessary money to pay as bribe, he had not been able to get a fitness certificate for his horse at the Diwan-i-Arz. The Sultan inquired how much was needed, and the soldier said that if he had a gold *tankah* he could get a certificate for his horse. The Sultan ordered his purse-bearer to give a *tankah* to the soldier. The trooper went to the Diwan-i-Arz with the *ashrafi* and paying it to the clerk concerned got the certificate.⁴⁶ He then returned and thanked the Sultan. Encouragement to corruption from the head of the State was a matter of concern. But what else could Afif say but that Firoz Shah was a very kind-hearted and affectionate Sultan!
c9.s3.8
These cases of bribery, corruption and embezzlement concern government officials of not so high a status among the upper classes. But the highest nobles of the State indulged in them. The story of the deception of Kajar Shah, the Master of Mint, speaks for itself. It is so interesting that its incidents may be given in some detail. Firoz Tughlaq had issued several varieties of new coins and *shashgani* (or six-*jital*-piece) was one of them.
c9.s3.9
As the coin went into circulation, it was reported to the Sultan by two courtiers that there was a deficiency of one grain of silver in the *shashgani*, and they prayed for an investigation. If what they had said was proved to be true, they pleaded, the officials responsible for debasement of the coin must take the consequences. The Sultan immediately directed the Wazir, Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, to investigate the matter. Khan-i-Jahan was equally keen about the enquiry. Indeed he observed that the coinage of kings was like an unmarried daughter, whom no one would seek after, however beautiful and charming she might be, if any aspersion had, rightly or wrongly, been cast upon her character. So also was the case with the royal coins; if any one honestly or falsely alleged a debasement of the currency, the insinuation would spread, the coinage would earn a bad name, and no one would take it.
c9.s3.10
The affair was as scandalous as it was unique. To hold an open inquest was ruled out because the bona fides of the government itself were in question. Therefore the Wazir decided on a secret investigation, and sent for Kajar Shah, the Master of Mint, and asked him if his officials had been covetous. Kajar Shah knew that his game was up and he thought it best to make a clean breast of it to the Wazir. Khan-i-Jahan could not displease the Sultan, who had insisted that the intrinsic value of the coin should be tested in his presence. But he also could not allow the government to get into disrepute, and now that he had known the truth, he thought it best to hush up the case. Therefore, he recommended to Kajar Shah to arrange the matter over with the goldsmiths that they so manage their performance before the king that the process of debasement of the *shashgani* may not be detected. The goldsmiths, charcoal dealers and stove (*angusht*) managers were all tutored and everything was given a fool-proof finish. Firoz Shah was requested to watch the operation sitting in a private apartment with Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul. Kajar Shah and his accusers were called in. The goldsmiths were also brought in. The charcoal dealers brought the stoves and placed them before the goldsmiths. Several *shashgani* pieces were placed in the crucible, which the goldsmiths put upon the fire. The Sultan meanwhile entered into a conversation with his minister, and while he was so engaged, the workmen adroitly picked up the required pieces of silver and surreptitiously threw them into the melting pot. After a while the crucible was taken off the fire and the contents were weighed; the *shashgani* was proved to be of full standard value. Kajar Shah was presented with a robe of honour and other favours. He was seated on an elephant and taken round the city so that people might understand that the *shashgani* was of full value. The honest accusers were thus proved false and banished.⁴⁷
c9.s3.11
Another instance. An important nobleman, Shamsuddin Abu Rija, the Auditor General (Mustaufi), had earned wide notoriety as a professional bribe-taker, embezzler and at that a tyrant. Shams Siraj Afif, historian contemporary of Firoz Shah, devotes thirty-five pages to record the crimes of Abu Rija.⁴⁸ The three years during which he held the office of the Auditor General, his hand of greed extended to all officers, Zamindars and Amils. Those who gave him bribes, were permitted to go scot-free; others who did not, were implicated by him on one charge or another and punished. Nobody dared to raise a voice against his criminal breach of trust or his atrocities, because he was a hot favourite of the Sultan. Even before he was made the Mustaufi, he, as the deputy governor of Gujarat, had borrowed 90 thousand *tankahs* from the Provincial Treasury for his own use, but had not refunded the amount. To hide his improper gains he had built a new mansion in Delhi and had buried underground thousands of gold *Ashrafis*. At last the Sultan could not keep his eyes closed to Shamsuddins black deeds because a number of nobles, including the Khan-i-Jahan, son of Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, insisted that he should be brought to book. Shamsuddins mansion was searched and his reserves of gold dug out. He was imprisoned and tortured so severely that he could never ride a horse again.⁴⁹ Strangely enough when Firozs son Muhammad ascended the throne, he recalled Shamsuddin Abu Rija and reinstated him with all honours.⁵⁰
c9.s3.12
But the one man who amassed probably the largest amount of wealth in the Sultanate period, escaped scot-free. This man was Bashir, a slave of Firoz Shah. He had originally come as a part of the dower of Firozs mother. In course of time, and through the favour of Sultan Firoz, he rose into prominence and got the title of Imadul Mulk. His one passion was acquisition of wealth. Related to the sultan as he was, he soon accumulated crores of *tankahs*. Gunny bags required for storing the coin alone were estimated to cost 2,500 tankahs, the price of each bag being four *jitals*;⁵¹ but Imadul Mulk objected to this extravagant outlay for bags and directed that pits should be dug in the ground and the money placed therein like as corn is stored. He had amassed thirteen crore *tankahs* but he was greedy about acquiring more.⁵²
c9.s3.13
Just imagine thirteen crore *tankahs*. The total revenue of a year during Firozs reign was six crore and seventy-five lac *tankahs*;⁵³ and one individual slave of the Sultan (Bashir-i-Sultani) had acquired wealth amounting to two years total revenue of the country. Could corruption go further? There were many rich Khans and Maliks in the time of Firoz Shah, writes Afif, but no one was so rich as he; indeed there never had been one so rich in any reign or in any kingdom. Still the officers of the Revenue Department could not call him to account; they were indeed afraid of him, for he was a favourite of the Sultan. To please the Sultan, Imadul Mulk once presented him with a crore of *tankahs*. But twelve crores still remained with him. At his death, the Sultan ordered nine crores to be deposited in the State exchequer on the plea that Bashir is my property (as his slave), and so his property is mine. Three crores were left with Imadul Mulks son Ishaq who also got the title of his father. Afif adds that Ishaq himself was an extremely rich man and did not stand in need of his fathers wealth.
c9.s3.14
The chronicler philosophises by saying: These nobles accumulated so much wealth by lawful and unlawful means (*vajeh na vajeh*), and then leaving it undertook the last journey where they were to account for all this wealth.⁵⁴ But such ill-gotten gains at least created havoc in this world, because, according to Afif himself, much of the trouble that came about in the time of Sultan Muhammad (son of Firoz) was due to the accumulation of such wealth in the hands of a few nobles.⁵⁵
c9.s3.15
Thus there was corruption in the army, in civil administration and in the royal mint. Hoarding, black-marketing and bribery were commonly practised. Even the judiciary was not free from corruption, and that too during the reign of a strong and stern monarch like Alauddin. Talking of Qazi Hamiduddin Multani, Ziyauddin Barani cryptically remarks, it would not be proper to write about his qualities in history. He also says that not the godfearing and abstemious but corruptible, greedy and mundane people were appointed as judges.⁵⁶ His one complaint was that judges used to stretch the meaning of the Quranic texts to carry out the wishes of the Sultans.⁵⁷ The indictment by Maulana Shamsuddin Turk of the judiciary of the day is also worth citing. The Maulana who hailed from Egypt, addressed a letter to Alauddin saying that ill-fated wiseacres of black faces sat in mosques with abominable law books and made money by cheating both the accuser and the accused, and the Qazis did not bring these facts to the notice of the king.⁵⁸ It is said that Shamsuddin Turk was opposed to Qazi Hamiduddin, and therefore wrote in such a way, but in *Mutla-i-Anwar*, Amir Khusrau also observes that the Qazis were ignorant of the principles of law. The appointment of Ibn Battuta, who did not know a word of law, as the Qazi of the capital by Muhammad bin Tughlaq, came to him as the greatest surprise.
c9.s3.16
Having studied some prominent cases of bribery, corruption and hoarding, of the nobles, and the rich upper class people in the Sultanate times, let us analyse their genesis and their prominent aspects. It is clear that corruption had nothing much to do with poverty or a low standard of living. During Balbans rule the nobility and armymen, who could not or would not perform their duties for which lands had been granted to them, were not poor. But they wanted their privileges to continue; about performing their duties they were not concerned. Fakhruddin, the Kotwal, who pleaded their case with the king was moved as much by compassion as by self-interest. He was himself old and in course of time stood to lose all privileges if the orders of Balban were not amended. The people who minted counterfeit coins found in the token currency of Muhammad bin Tughlaq a challenge to their intelligence and ingenuity, and took advantage of the golden opportunity provided by it to get rich. The officials of the Diwan-i-Arz who took a gold *tankah* for issuing the fitness certificate to the cavalryman in the days of Firoz were not poor; they were habitual bribe-takers. The *shiqdars* or officers who embezzled the money advanced to them for cultivation by Muhammad bin Tughlaq again, were not poor. The people who minted debased currency, the wholesalers and retailers who indulged in hoarding and black-marketing, men like Kajar Shah and Bashir-i-Sultani, did not do what they did because they were poor, but because they were greedy and opportunists. The object of the opportunists was to get rich, of the rich to get richer. Their luxurious life, their women and wine and their ambition to amass wealth, kept the torch of corruption burning.
c9.s3.17
Individual cases of corruption and embezzlement apart, the sure and perennial sources of extra income of the nobles were two-what they could save on their troops and what they could collect in addition to the nominal value of their assignments - and able and unscrupulous men made as much extra wealth as possible from both these. In the words of Shihabuddin Ahmad, The *khans, maliks, amirs*, and *isfah-salars* receive the revenues of the places assigned to them by the treasury Generally speaking they bring in much more than their estimated value Some of the officers receive double, and even more than that, in excess of the estimated value of their grants.⁵⁹ What this practice meant to the poor peasant would be discussed later.⁶⁰ The irony of the matter was that everyone knew about it, including the king himself. The king was even a party to the system for he allotted good lands to his favourites nobles. Even Sher Shah Suri, who is regarded as a friend of the agriculturists, changed his *amils* (revenue collectors) every year, or second year, and sent new ones, for he said that there is no such income and advantage in other employments as in the government of a district. Therefore I (Sher Shah) send my good old loyal experienced servants to take charge of districts, that the salaries, profits, and advantages, may accrue to them in preference to others; and after two years I change them, and send other servants like to them, that they also may prosper⁶¹
c9.s3.18
In the Mughal period the same trends continued. Things might have improved under the able and shrewd Akbar, but only might. He too was part of the system. He too was surrounded by the same sort of people who were ready of speech and expert at intrigue. Corruption in the Mughal times was so widespread - in the army, in civil administration and even in judiciary - that narration of individual cases cannot just be done. Exceptions apart, the more important the Amir, the larger his expenses, and the greater his attempt at grabbing more and more wealth. The biographical notices collected by Blochmann afford instances of the possibilities which Akbars service offered. Hakim Ali, for instance, came from Persia to India poor and destitute, but won Akbars favour, and being his personal servant rose to the rank of 2000. Peshrau Khan again was a slave who was given to Humayun as a present; he rendered service in many different capacities and died a commander of 2000, leaving a fortune of 15 lakhs (equivalent to nearly a crore of rupees at modern values).⁶² No one was immune from this temptation. Shaikh Ibrahim Chishti of Jaunpur died at Fatehpur, bidding farwell to mountains of gold, 25 crores in cash taken into the treasury; the rest in the words of Badaoni, fell to the share of his enemies - his sons and representatives.⁶³ Under Akbars successor things were certainly bad. Jahangir believed in frequent transfers, and the certainty of a speedy change meant increased activity in exploitation⁶⁴ Under Shahjahan and Aurangzeb the peasant was systematically fleeced.
c9.s3.19
The exaction of official perquisites or gratuities was the universal and admitted practice. Official corruption was, however, admitted in society to be immoral, and there were many officers above corruption. But the receiving and even demanding of presents by men in power was the universal rule and publicly acknowledged. Nur Jahans father, when prime minister under Jahangir, was shameless in demanding presents. So also was Jafar Khan, one of the early Wazirs of Aurangzeb. Jai Singh offered a purse of Rs.30,000 to the Wazir for inducing the emperor to retain him in the Deccan command. Bhimsen expresses his disgust at having to pay everybody at Court in order to get or retain a petty civil office. The qazis grew enormously rich by taking bribes, the most notorious of them being Abdul Wahab. So also did many *sadars*. Even the emperor was not exempt from it. Aurangzeb asked an aspirant to a title, Your father gave to Shahjahan one lakh of rupees for adding *alif* to his title and making him Amir Khan. How much will you pay me for the title I am giving you?⁶⁵ Qabil Khan in two-and-a-half years of personal attendance on Aurangzeb amassed 12 lakhs of rupees in cash, besides articles of value and a new house for selling to suppliants his good offices. As Jadunath Sarkar says, this pressure was passed from the emperor downwards; each social grade trying to sqeeze out of the class below itself what it had to pay as present to the rank above it, the cultivator of the soil and the trader being the victims in the last resort.⁶⁶
Cites (2)
- Maṭlaʿ al-anwār — Amīr Khusraw Dihlavī, Persian
- Tārīkh-i Fīrūzshāhī — Shams-i Sirāj ʿAfīf, Persian