The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c18.s2: The nature of the State
The Sultanate of Delhi, 711–1526 A.D. c18.s2
- Language
- English
The nature of the State
c18.s2.1
The Turkish State in India, like all Islamic States, was a theocracy. It was based on the Islamic law as given in the *Quran* and expounded by jurists. The *Quranic* law was religious or Canon law and was known as *shariat* or the Law. All civil laws were merged in the *shariat*. The State had a religion of its own which was Islam. and, in strict theory, all the resources of the State were available for religious propaganda. In actual practice, however, this theory underwent many modifications. It was inevitable in a country like India, where a vast majority of the population was non-Muslim and where political conditions differed greatly from those contemplated by the Muslim jurists.
c18.s2.2
According to strict Islamic theory, the real king of a Muslim state is God. The earthly ruler is only His agent, bound to enforce His will as revealed in the *Quran*. The sovereignty was based on election by the *millat*, that is, the entire body of male Muslims in the country; but this theory, which could not work successfully even in Arabia, was reduced to a farce in Hindustan. The early Turks, who came to our country, had no fixed law of succession and no recognised procedure that they might follow in the case of a disputed succession. The choice of the Sultan during the thirteenth century was, generally speaking, limited to the surviving members of the deceased ruler's family. Thus, birth, ability and nomination by the dead king and the support given by the nobles—these factors very often decided the election. It was, however, the decisive voice of the powerful nobles that determined the selection of a ruler. It is worthy of note that the topmost nobles usually preferred personal convenience to the interest of the State.
c18.s2.3
The Sultanate of Delhi was a military State and was based on force, not on the consent of the people. The entire territory in its possession was held by powerful Turkish troops. There were established garrisons at the strategic places in the interior of the country. A line of forts was built and garrisoned with troops along its frontiers to serve as military outposts. The government being foreign, it concerned itself with two duties only, that is, the collection of revenue and the maintenance of law and order. It had little to do with the welfare of the public.
c18.s2.4
The only citizens of the early Turkish state in India were Muslims, notably Turkish Musalmans. The Hindus, who formed a vast majority of the population of the Sultanate of Delhi, were not accorded full rights of citizenship. The non-Muslims were called *zimmis*, that is, people living under guarantee or contract. When the Turks conquered our country, they offered, like other Muslim conquerors, three alternatives to the conquered people, namely, conversion to Islam, or death, or living like a subject and degraded people on payment of the *jizya*. A vast majority of the conquered people agreed to pay the *jizya*, and they were allowed to live. Several disabilities were imposed upon the *zimmis* who were discriminated against in matters of state employment, civic rights, justice and taxation. Learned Muslim divines (*ulema*), who were supposed to be the custodians of Islamic law, were particularly hostile to the subject people. Their policy aimed at reducing the Hindus to the position political fiction, these new and independent Muslim States recognised the Khalifa, at least in theory, to be their political and religious head or suzerain. They had the Khalifa’s name on their coins and in the *khutbas*. This fiction continued even after the Buddhist Hulagu, the great Mongol leader, had taken Baghdad and put the Khalifa to death in 1258. An uncle of the last Khalifa took refuge in Egypt, where he was recognised as the spiritual head by the Sultans of that country. The fiction, thus, continued till the last of the nominal Khalifas resigned his theoretical rights in favour of Sultan Sulaiman II of Constantinople in the sixteenth century.
c18.s2.5
Mahmud of Ghazni was given the title of Sultan by the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad. Muhammad of Ghur, too, inscribed the name of the Caliph on his coins. It was in the interest of the early Turkish Sultans of Hindustan to pose as the nominees of the Khalifa. They did not like to disregard the tradition of the supposed unity of the Islamic State. Iltutmish was the first Turkish Sultan of Delhi to receive a formal investitute as Sultan from the Khalifa. He introduced the name of the Khalifa of Baghdad on his coins. None of his successors throughout the period of the so-called Slave dynasty was so invested by the theoretical sovereign of the so-called Islamic State. Yet all the rulers of the dynasty continued, in theory, to profess themselves to be the deputies of the Khalifa. It had become a fashion to do so.