History of the Qaraunah Turks in India c7.63

Language: English

c7.63.1

Barani, who gives the first place to this scheme of taxation among the causes of the decline of Muhammad's empire, writes that it brought about the ruin of the country and the decay of the people and his view is adopted by Nizam-al-Din and Firishta. The author of the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi*, who is an earlier authority than Nizam-al-Din and Firishta, describes the measure as a process of assessment, and Hajji-ad-Dabir following some text of Barani ascribes it to the emptiness of the treasury.³⁶ Modern writers have attributed the enhancement to the drain on the treasury which was caused by the reckless prodigality of the Sultan, though Mr. Gardner Brown is inclined to consider it as a necessary and proper measure, for the Doab was the most prosperous part of the empire and could well bear—as 'Ala-al-Din had shown—a higher rate than was usually imposed.³⁷ It is true, the Sultan had spent huge sums of money in celebrating his coronation, and had awarded rich gifts to the nobility and the common people. But subsequent events make it clear that he was by no means confronted with bankruptcy. The chief motive seems to have been to obtain revenue in order to be able to increase his military resources and to organise the administration on an efficient basis. It was an administrative measure for which there was a precedent.

c7.63.2

The Doab was, as it had long been, the richest and most fertile part of Hindustan, and its refractory inhabitants had given not a little trouble to the rulers of Dihli. There is plenty of evidence of this in Barani's *Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi* and in the *Tarikh-i-Mubarak Shahi* which describes at length the attempts of the later Tughluqs to suppress the rebellions in the Doab. Whenever a change of dynasties or rulers occurred, the people of the Doab were the first to revolt, and civil wars often broke out in which the rival protagonists changed sides with astonishing rapidity and fought with a savage ferocity. The importance of the Doab has continued unabated, and every adventurer who rose to the surface in the 18th century coveted its possession and exerted himself to establish his hold upon it. Even Mahdaji Sindhia, one of the ablest and most farseeing statesmen of the period deemed it necessary to establish himself in the Doab in order to keep his hold over the decrepit empire of the Mughals. It is almost a truism to say that whoever possesses the Doab and keeps its inhabitants under firm control not only acquires possession of vast material resources, but commands the whole of Hindustan. 'Ala-al-Din had harshly dealt with the Khūts, muqaddams and Balāhars of the Doab, who possessed the great reservoir of wealth upon which the rulers of Dihli could draw in time of need for the maintenance of their power.

c7.63.3

He had raised the land tax to 50 per cent and levied in addition to this a house tax and a grazing tax.³⁸ Ghiyas seems to have maintained this rate, but he was especially careful to avoid inequitable enhancement, for the Hindus were treated severely, and Barani writes that only a bare subsistence was left to them.³⁹ Muhammad had no capable minister like Sharaf Qai to carry out thoroughly the work of assessment, nor was his scheme of revised taxation enforced at an opportune moment. He felt that the Doab did not contribute enough to the revenues of the state, and therefore decided to enhance the taxes. Mr. Gardner Brown's statement that the new taxation was not heavy, indeed, lighter than was subsequently levied is not justified by facts, for Firuz levied 1/10th as the right of Sharb or irrigation with the advice of the doctors of the law in addition to the Khiraj allowed by the orthodox school. The Fawāyad-i-Firuz Shahi, a work on Muslim law, written during the reign of Firuz Shah, divides Khiraj into two classes—the Khiraj-i-Wazifah, i.e., the fixed tribute in the shape of money or grain which was taken from the conquered and the Khiraj-i-muqāsimah which ranged from 25 per cent to 50 per cent, the last rate being the maximum allowed.⁴⁰ There is no evidence in the contemporary works to the effect that the maximum was ever reached under Firuz. On the contrary, we read of the cheapness of prices and of the abolition of as many as 23 taxes during his reign.⁴¹